Originally Posted by Dueces
Apple doesn't use SSD's that saturate 1.5? I think you better check your facts.
There are a lot of SSDs which saturate 1.5. In fact, for data that's already in cache, some hard disks are pretty close.
Originally Posted by hmurchison
Now I don't have the read the hysterical rantings from the overly vocal Mac users. Us old hands figured an update was forthcoming as there's little reason to cut the SATA bandwidth in half.
I've been using Macs since about 1985 and there has been endless whining over 'missing' features, things Apple does 'wrong' and so on.
I suspect that many of them are from people who don't even own Apple products. Or kids who would never be buying the latest version, anyway.
Originally Posted by bigpics
This story and your comment partially answer a question I have. I'm planning to get a new 15" MBP 2.8 shortly after Snow comes pre-installed. Clearly, if HDD's can't tax the 1.5 Sata level and SSD's can, they have some advantages. But I'm wondering how telling they are.
So my question was comparing Apple's SSD's with their 7200 rpm 500 GB drive in terms of various aspects of performance. This will be my next main machine for likely 5 years or so, and I want it to be as fast as possible within my budget, with plenty of onboard storage. I've compared the price of upgrading from 5400 to 7200 and thus getting the space I really need compared to spending far more on a much smaller SSD - and if the perf diff from 5400 to 7200 is noticeable, it seems like kind of a sweet spot for me.
Especially as I think in about 2 or maybe 3 years 512MB SSD's should be readily available and more affordable (probably better too) than 256's today - so a few years down the road I'm eyeballing going from 4 to 8 GB RAM (maybe sooner on the RAM), and one of those future SSD babies to juice me up for the second half of my planned use.
Reviews usually stick to Apple default configs, so this is a question I've never heard answered.
So if anyone can enlighten me, how much faster on which tasks ARE today's Apple-supplied SSD's compared to 7200 HDD? And 7200 to 5400?
Do a google search - there are a lot of comparisons.
In short, SSDs are more physically robust and use less energy (although it won't amount to more than a few extra minutes unless you're watching movies from HD). SSDs will also have shorter boot times and application launch times. The real difference, though, isn't the sustained transfer rate. Few people are going to get that much benefit from that in a laptop. Where you WILL see the benefit is in random access. Access times on a SSD are 0.1 msec compared to 12-15 msec on a 7200 rpm drive. When you're bouncing around a lot from one thing to another, the SSD will feel a lot snappier.
Originally Posted by aplnub
What battery life surplus is there using the latest ssd vs he'd in a unibody notebook? First and second generation.
Only a few minutes in the tests I've seen. The hard disk isn't that big an energy user-- unless you're continually accessing it. Even then, you'd be lucky to see a 5-10% gain.
Originally Posted by LE Studios
I need to see more benchmark I been through Xbench. I don't think Apple sells any HDD that are over 1.5GBps or 192MBps. The 128GB SSD in the 2.13GHz MacBook Air it states that it is a 3Gbps SATA but the SSD on Samsung's site says its a 1.5Gbps SATA Interface. The results from the benchmarks it looks like SATA 1.5Gbps. I see what Apple is doing by using 1.5Gbps HDDs & SSD on a 3Gbps Interface will drop it down to 1.5Gbps therefore won't consume more power for nothing. The ONLY way it seems is to buy a 3rd Party HDD or SSD. Apple so far to me seem to be 1.5Gbps but I guess everybody gripe that they wanted the option if they do want to go 3Gbps SATA II HDD or SSD.
First, don't use xbench as a benchmark - it's not very good.
Second, the energy savings from 1.5 to 3 Gbps SATA is insignificant - if it's real at all. I doubt that there's even a theoretical difference (use, the higher clock speed might use more energy, but you'll be transferring data for a shorter time, so 3 Gbps might even use LESS energy). In any event, it wouldn't make sense for Apple to have 2 different SATA settings depending on which hard drive was used. Forget it.